By Michael Craig on 1.3.03 @ 12:05AM
No, not ''I was only with that girl because she reminded me of you.''
The first big business story of 2003 will be about corporate
dividends. Once the inducement to own the dowdiest stocks,
dividends are suddenly hot. According to a recent Fortune,
stock dividends have risen 20% since last spring, and dividend
payouts by S&P 500 companies have grown by half a percentage
point in the first nine months of 2002. It's not a surprise,
really: after three losing years in the stock market, a cash
dividend puts at least some money in your pocket. Dividend-paying
companies also have a reputation for being conservative and
reliable.
Now, it looks like the government may help pay for the party.
Republican victories in the Senate and House in November, plus all
this talk about an economic stimulus package, have increased the
likelihood that taxpayers will receive some kind of tax break on
dividend income.
I hate to spoil the fun, but there is a big ugly downside to all
this dividend hype. Except for a small number of investors,
dividend yield should be irrelevant in deciding to buy a stock.
Furthermore, tax relief in the form of reducing the taxes on
dividend income (to, say, 20%, like long-term capital gains) will
have a disastrous effect on the economy. Dividends are much more
dangerous than they look.
Dividends are an unproductive use of capital. One of the great
attributes of our economic system -- maybe its greatest attribute
-- is that it gets capital to the places where it can be used most
efficiently. (Close behind is the fact that, after providing the
greatest rewards to those most responsible, the system generally
rewards a relatively large number of people for being part of the
process, like investors, customers, and employees.)
Every investor makes this decision without even thinking about
it. Who can make better use of $100,000, me or Bill Gates? I was
thinking of opening a pizza joint, but I think Microsoft will make
better use of the capital than my restaurant fantasy, so I bought
2,000 shares. Imagine my horror if I received this letter:
Dear Mike:
Thanks for investing in Microsoft. We used the money profitably,
but ran out of ideas. Enclosed is a check. Let us know how the
pizza place turns out.
Bill G.
At first, I'd appreciate the candor. This would be better than
Microsoft blowing the money on some product that never had a
chance, or on some poorly conceived acquisition. But the day
Microsoft says Mike Craig can use money more productively than Bill
Gates is the day I get rid of that stock.
The whole economic recovery is up for grabs if Congress and the
President allow a portion of the economic stimulus package to be
wasted on dividend tax relief. Encouraging companies to pay
dividends would lead to economic stagnation, not economic
stimulus. The recovery is so shaky because businesses aren't
spending. They are cutting inventory, laying off workers, putting
off capital improvements, and slowing down research and
development. The consumer, in contrast, is generally holding up his
end of the bargain, buying things and racking up debt.
If ever there was a time to direct a tax benefit to business, it
is now: make it cheaper for businesses to hire more workers, pay
them more money, buy new equipment, and increase R&D. Companies
usually do these things before they pay dividends because these
other things enhance the company. Dividends don't. And the current
tax system encourages spending the money productively, and
discourages just returning it to investors. Encouraging companies
to devote more profits to dividends, and less to more productive
uses of capital, will stop the recovery in its tracks.
A lot of dividend-paying companies are getting a free image
boost these days. Yes, most dividend-paying companies are
conservative. But that's because they don't have much choice. Look,
for example, at Philip Morris, which pays a fat dividend. The
company would probably rather spend that money on marketing to get
more people to smoke, or on blends of tobacco that encourage people
to smoke more. Of course, they aren't allowed to do that. AT&T
used to pay a big dividend. Once it got the approval to enter other
businesses, it took a shot at diversifying out of its dead-end long
distance business. It didn't work out, but it was absolutely the
right thing to try. Like most companies, AT&T paid a big
dividend only when it had no place else to put the money
With more companies offering dividends and the possibility of
more still if Congress gets involved, investing for yield will
become a dangerous game. After all, dividend yields are not
guaranteed. If companies start throwing money at investors to make
their stocks attractive, they could be taking money away from other
things, and eventually find themselves having to cut those
newly-generous payouts. Almost as bad as owning stock in a
fraudulent company is owning one that cuts its dividend. Apart from
losing that regular payout, investors flee the scene, sending the
stock plummeting. (And what if some company tries to get with the
program by offering a dividend, then later discovers some other
great use for the money -- a great acquisition or vital R&D? To
keep investors from jumping ship, it's going to have to pass.)
Finally, most of what I read suggests that Congress will
probably cut the taxpayer portion of the tax rather than the
corporate portion. After all, the pressure is on Congress to spread
the stimulus around. If that happens, it will still be
disadvantageous for a corporation to pay a dividend, compared to
some other (tax-deductible) use of the money. But now you've got a
nation of investors looking for dividend yield. For companies to
attract those investors, they will have to spend their money on
non-deductible dividends, even though they have previously been
spending it on deductible items they thought would help investors
more in the long run. Isn't that just as bad as a company, during
the late Nineties, making a dramatic acquisition for too much money
to impress shareholders?
To paraphrase Groucho Marx, I wouldn't want to own stock in any
company that thinks I could outperform it.
topics:
Taxes, Business, Oil